Racism Starts With Discrimination

Official philosophers, paid to philosophize by institutions of advanced learning, tend to hopelessly small thoughts, most rewarding to their employers, who are always looking for ever more efficient ways to make us all stupid and divided. Indeed, those employers profit from great propaganda, and the best propaganda is the one setting the concept, universe, parameters, of the debate. A Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, profits from the New York Times’ soapbox. Says he in “My Parents Mixed Message On The Holocaust”:

I am a philosopher. My calling, at its very basic level, obligates me to question the beliefs with which I was raised. But on this topic — how to live — I was given two answers. Which view do evidence and reason command?

Plutocrats Prefer We The People To Sink Rather Than Think. Well Paid Pseudo-Philosophers Are Best For That.

Plutocrats Prefer We The People To Sink Rather Than Think. Well Paid Pseudo-Philosophers Are Best For That.

Jason-the-philosopher pursues:

“I accept the legacy of my father. But it is impossible for me to shut out my mother’s concerns. Maybe the reality is that all groups are at war for power, and that to adopt an ethic of common humanity is a grave disadvantage. Maybe we should do what we can, but prioritize the safety of our families.

History speaks strongly on my mother’s side. So does my anecdotal evidence. I am white Jewish-American; my sons and wife are black Americans. I cannot retreat from my commitment to these groups. Being interested in the equal dignity of other groups is an additional burden.

It takes work to feel the suffering of Palestinians when I hear of the anger they bear toward my fellow Jews, even though I recognize its clearly justifiable source. It takes much more work to feel the suffering of poor white Americans when I hear it coupled with a thoroughly unjustifiable racism directed against my children. Is it work that I should be doing? Or should I be doing the work of attending primarily to the flourishing of my children?”

I sent a comment to the New York Times. It was censored. Of course. Here it is:

You call your sons “black Americans”. This makes them into what you call a “group”, and others call a “race” or a “tribe”.

Therefore you racialize and tribalize your own sons.

This is most strange, as your sons are actually, at the very least, half white Jewish-Americans. So why not call them “white Americans”?

But there is more. As most “black Americans”, even Michelle Obama, have already some “white American” ancestry, your sons are most probably more white than black. So why not call them what they are? White Americans?

Because racists anti-”black Americans” would call your sons “black Americans”? So you adopt the racist discourse to conceptualize your own sons?

To be a racist, one needs to discriminate AGAINST a “group”. To do so, one needs first to discriminate BETWEEN “groups”. Indeed, first, the “group” has to exist. Thus, to define a group by exerting enough discrimination to distinguish it is, by itself, discriminatory.

[End of comment censored by NYT. By the way, Jason the Philosopher, above, is author of “How propaganda works”]

This hostility to “racially” based discrimination is highly practical: all French Jews were not officially classified as “Jewish” by the state in France, as French law prevents the official establishment of religion or race, thus polls thereof. Thus, in France, there cannot be “groups” based on “race’, “religion”, etc. Consequence: during the Occupation of France by the Nazis, most French Jews escaped “the holocaust” (“only”, 75,000 were assassinated by the Nazis, most of them foreign Jews who had escaped to France, and whom the USA had refused to accept as refugees).

By contrast, The Netherlands required Dutch subjects who were Jewish to register as such. Conclusion: it was very easy for the Nazis to find them. Most Dutch Jews died. 125,000 of them.

In a broad perspective, classifying people under “religious” or “racial” appurtenance perpetuates religious discrimination and “racial” strife. As the USA is extremely mixed


Oh, last but not least, there was more than just one holocaust in the history of humanity. And some were more thorough. For example, the Cathars were fully (holo) burned (caust). Literally (once, in a particular mass assassination, 2,000 Cathars were burned, alive, together!) Judaism does not have the right to own the concept of “holocaust”, and to refuse to share it with any other “group”.

Doing so, monopolizing the concept and usage of “holocaust” would be an offense against countless groups, reason, and knowledge. Not a good way to avoid a repeat, or, at the very least, hostility.

As Voltaire pointed out ironically, official philosophers are not there to find the truth, but to comfort power. One does not find wisdom by following the money. Racism starts with discrimination, and, apparently, Yale philosophy professors are paid to discriminate between human groups. Not coincidentally, the famous “Skull and Bones” society was founded in Yale in the early Nineteenth Century. It inspired the Nazis, and even some of the most dreadful  SS propaganda.

Patrice Ayme’    


Tags: , , ,

8 Responses to “Racism Starts With Discrimination”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    I always found the specifically Anglo-Saxon idea that a single drop of “black blood”(*) makes you a black, and not the reverse, very offensive (stupid and evil). It is as if black ancestry was a stain, something dirty, and white ancestry something pure and virginal, to be preserved from contamination.

    Of course, in addition to the racism, there was the great American virtue of greed involved – this “rule” allowed slave owners to own and trade their own descendants, for a high price as to all practical purposes, they looked (and where) white. Thus, when female, more to the taste of discerning gentlemen. “Sally Hemings’ mother Betty was a bright mulatto woman, and Sally mighty near white… Sally was very handsome, long straight hair down her back”. This refers to Jefferson’s “mistress” whom he had the audacity to keep in slavery in Paris, against the French law.


    But the pits was when racial equality movements adopted the rule as their own. Thus internalizing the idea that one part of their ancestry is a stain which taints all the other parts. The Christian Southern Gentlemen have won. They must cheer from the deep pits of Hell. Your “philosopher” is much to their liking, even if – being Jewish – he’d have been denied entry to their stately Colonial mansions.

    (*) “blood”: note the use of prehistoric genetics vocabulary; still very much prevalent.


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      TBH, the “racial equality movement” of the day is nothing more than the anglo model about races, IE plain, unadulterated racism, being exported all through the “Western world” – with the added bonus of substituting the “races (writ large) struggle” to the “classes struggle”; the perfect foil to keep ’em distracted, while everything (neo)liberal reigns supreme.
      Maybe not the main tool of the Devil (what our resident writer terms plutocracy), but certainly an invaluable asset to dissolve whatever might stand in the way. Starting with the People.

      And as for the “being Jewish” bit, cue in indravaruna and the other odd judeomaniacs popping up every now and then, because it is right up thier alley, and rightly so; after all, Jews taken as a community have had much to gain in such racial free-for-all, over the last half century, if only because it torpedoes the (for all purpose extinct for good) French model, that used to “eat Jews” (by making them… French).


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Right Kevin. The “multiculturalism” is itself a plot. It’s a way to eradicate all values (too bad the Aztecs are not around, hahaha). Especially to eradicate REPUBLICAN values. Thus multiculturalism is used as a weapon against… the Enlightenment, an evil purpose if there ever was one… It’s more divide and conquer, and this is what all too many Trump voters are starting to understand. Hence the accusation of “populism”, against them, We The People…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All agreed, Dominique, but it gets worse: the “one drop is a stain” mentality extends all over. Thus a whiff of “sans culotism” stains you… forever. I got burned to a crisp my many of my (ex?) Silicon Valley “friends” (were friends when it was useful to them) for just being slightly out of their predictable (by them) parameters. I had the same problem with Obama’s sycophants.

      This may look absurd, considering the claims of Anglosaxonia for “tolerance”. However “tolerance” is just a smokescreen. Real intolerance below is made possible by colossal hypocrisy.

      My first encounter with British racism was when entering Gambia as a child. There were bathrooms for “Ladies and Gentlemen” and others for “males and Females”.

      Now all this functions only with hypocrisy. The Yale described “philosopher” knows well that, by calling his (mostly) white children, “black”, he ingratiates himself to the established New England order. He does the same by flaunting his “Jewishness”. In both cases, he exhibits his ability to find true and evident that semantics which is obviously vicious and false.

      The meta-lesson? What the established order finds obvious and true while being vicious and false, needs to be widely advertised as the one and only truth, so “help me god”.


  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Cf. the leaks about the late GWB era efforts to find, promote and cultivate “promising leaders” (à la Obama, one might guess?) from “French diversity”.

    Cf. the recent leaks about the Soros funds going to European outlets, organizations, internet news associations, promoting such discrimination, people sorting themselves out of The People, through their genitalia and how they use them, their skin colour, their ethnicity,…

    Cf. the “SWJ” (well, the actuality of what’s behind that loaded term, anyway) phenomenon, and how it is already well on its way into the French “left”.

    Cf. the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and by that, I mean “as seen through the anglo prism”.

    Cf. the recent idiocy about the “burkini” – and I kinda hope that you did follow that one, because, for all the antics and the low signal-to-noise ratio (LOTS to ponder, about the “burkini’s origin, about the artificiality of the controversy, about what is not said in the political “responses”), it’s actually quite an interesting footnote; the reaction all through the anglo world (only as seen through its online footprint, MSM and anonymous idiots like me, I confess) truly has been enlightening; about them, about how they see France, and, by default, about the French model itself.
    For the meat on that argument, I’ll just refer to other folks who Tell Me What To Think, most notably JP Immarigeon, who’s been steady and matter-of-factly on that burkini fiasco (as it *is* fiasco).


  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    RE Yale’s “secret societies”, IIRC, there were and are several others along S&B, interlocked and drawing from the same pool toward filling up the same “middle management of the Thalassocracy” available slots. I can’t recall right now, don’t care really (“Scroll &???”, “Wolf & ???…), one thing that I do recall though is that they were inspired from the same general Germanic esoteric BS that the Brits used when they re-invented themselves as “nordics”, in the making of their mystical imperialism.
    When you note Yale’s connection to nazism, it’s really a prêté pour un rendu, Nazis just took that crap seriously, while it was just a moral fig leaf to justify rapacious, predatory greed… and believed it enough to try and use it on Europeans – even worse, to try and use it against the *actual* “Master Race”!
    English pragmatism versus German romanticism.


  4. tom Says:

    Just labelling someone is not discrimination IMHO. Furthermore it is plain stupid: I can tell someone’s ‘skin race’ by just looking at them. If your name is ‘Mohammed’ or ‘Louise’, then I can make a pretty safe guess as to your religion. So for instance EU mandates to eradicate religion from ID cards looks rather stuppid to me(they were unnecessary to begin with, but making a big fuss is equally stupid). I can also discriminate if I want to against tall/short people, people with blue or black eyes and so on. This may be stupid, but it’s my right and no one can read my mind if I have a special like or dislike against people with blue or black eyes for instance. The issue of discrimination is what does the official state do. As for the professor, his inner conflicts make absolutely no sense to me and are even factually wrong.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The New York Times did even better with an (anti-secularist, pro-Islam, Wahhabist version, anti-French) editorial from a fake Muslim teenager, on the Burkini, yesterday (see latest essay). My comments were naturally censored.
      Refusing “religious” identification is appropriate. First, there are around 100 versions of Islam, and many want to kill each other: we would need to specify the sub-sects. Secondly in countries such as France, more than 80% of the population is “Catholic”, except, they don’t believe in God (although they do believe in keeping cathedrals and churches in good order).
      Falsely associating people to religion can lead to dramas such as we saw in WWII (most of the Dutch “Jews” were assassinated), or, say, Bosnia, let alone Syria… I have Muslim friends who are gentle, except when the right to nationhood of other (types of) Muslims are evoked, and they become very agitated…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: